Search
Search results
Entertainment Editor (1988 KP) created a video about track Fammi Ristari by Terra Sangue Mare featuring Michela Musolino, Michael Delia, Fabio Turchetti in Terra Sangue Mare by Terra Sangue Mare featuring Michela Musolino, Michael Delia, Fabio Turchetti in Music
Oct 29, 2017
Merissa (12069 KP) rated Elements of Retrofit (Thomas Elkin #1) in Books
Nov 20, 2023
As a long-term fan of the author's writing style, I was looking forward to reading a May-to-December story from her.
Whilst I adored Thomas himself, after all, what's not to like with a going silver fox professional who knows what he wants from life? I'm afraid Cooper just didn't quite hit the mark for me. Although he came across as mature at times, the majority of the time his cocky attitude annoyed me, and no, I couldn't get used to it (although Thomas managed to). I loved the world this book was set in, with the architectural references and the visual clues given. With so many things to love about this book, I'm sorry to give it a 3-star, but I just couldn't get to grips with Cooper. That's my issue, not the writing!
On the whole, another brilliant book by N.R. Walker, just one that didn't hit the mark for me. That doesn't mean I don't recommend it, because I do. You never know, you may find Cooper quirky and adorable!
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Apr 2, 2018
Whilst I adored Thomas himself, after all, what's not to like with a going silver fox professional who knows what he wants from life? I'm afraid Cooper just didn't quite hit the mark for me. Although he came across as mature at times, the majority of the time his cocky attitude annoyed me, and no, I couldn't get used to it (although Thomas managed to). I loved the world this book was set in, with the architectural references and the visual clues given. With so many things to love about this book, I'm sorry to give it a 3-star, but I just couldn't get to grips with Cooper. That's my issue, not the writing!
On the whole, another brilliant book by N.R. Walker, just one that didn't hit the mark for me. That doesn't mean I don't recommend it, because I do. You never know, you may find Cooper quirky and adorable!
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Apr 2, 2018
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Wolverine (2013) in Movies
Jul 30, 2019
An ok film that could have been so much more.
Here we have the 6th entry into the X-Men franchise, and the second solo outing for Wolverine.
I, like many comic fans, was thrilled when it was announced that this film would be diving into Logan's time in Japan. It's arguably one of the strongest solo Wolverine storylines from the comic!
The finished film however misses the mark. Not completely - remnants of the comic are left intact, buts it's clear that the studio meddled once again. When The Wolverine is concentrating on the dialogue heavy scenes, it's good. When it throws Logan against ninjas, it's (mostly) good.
However, FOX obviously didn't have enough faith in this as a whole, and opted to push James Mangold in the direction of dodgy CGI orgies.
The climatic battle against a massive CGI robot ninja (referred to as Silver Samurai - the bloody cheek), is so out of place, that it nearly ruins the whole film.
I feel that James Mangold is not to blame. He clearly has respect for the source material, and isn't about big CGI blowouts - he would go on to direct the stellar Logan a few years later.
A wasted opportunity then, and a storyline I really hope Marvel Studios revisits again in the future
I, like many comic fans, was thrilled when it was announced that this film would be diving into Logan's time in Japan. It's arguably one of the strongest solo Wolverine storylines from the comic!
The finished film however misses the mark. Not completely - remnants of the comic are left intact, buts it's clear that the studio meddled once again. When The Wolverine is concentrating on the dialogue heavy scenes, it's good. When it throws Logan against ninjas, it's (mostly) good.
However, FOX obviously didn't have enough faith in this as a whole, and opted to push James Mangold in the direction of dodgy CGI orgies.
The climatic battle against a massive CGI robot ninja (referred to as Silver Samurai - the bloody cheek), is so out of place, that it nearly ruins the whole film.
I feel that James Mangold is not to blame. He clearly has respect for the source material, and isn't about big CGI blowouts - he would go on to direct the stellar Logan a few years later.
A wasted opportunity then, and a storyline I really hope Marvel Studios revisits again in the future
Awix (3310 KP) rated Sapphire and Steel in TV
Apr 2, 2020
It would be easy to mark Sapphire and Steel down just for being so obviously a low-budget, studio-bound TV show, but this would be to overlook just what a startlingly distinctive and uncompromising piece of... well, entertainment doesn't quite cover it, for the programme seemingly sets out to baffle the viewer as well as divert them. It is notionally a fantasy, but elements of SF and horror also appear. Stories mostly take place in out-of-the-way places like remote cottages, junk shops, the tops of tower blocks, disused railway stations and so on. The structure of time seems to be weaker in these places and when it breaks down or is interfered with, operatives such as Sapphire and Steel and their occasional colleagues appear to resolve the situation.
This is pretty much all we are told about the format of the series - who and what Sapphire and Steel are, what the limits of their powers are, and who they answer to, is never made clear (even the nature of their mission seems to change from story to story). The cryptic, often surreal nature of the series is one of its main attractions, along with the chemistry between the stars (occasional ally Silver, played by David Collings, is also a joy to watch).
The bleak and eerie atmosphere of the stories is consistently impressive, as is the clear understanding of visual style possessed by the makers: stories are filled with startling images and symbols, occasionally drawn from the visual arts (one adversary is basically a Magritte painting brought to life). Always memorable, and never more so than in its final episodes: the sheer unexpected bizarreness of Sapphire and Steel's fate makes it all the more shocking and downbeat. A unique and very distinctive series.
This is pretty much all we are told about the format of the series - who and what Sapphire and Steel are, what the limits of their powers are, and who they answer to, is never made clear (even the nature of their mission seems to change from story to story). The cryptic, often surreal nature of the series is one of its main attractions, along with the chemistry between the stars (occasional ally Silver, played by David Collings, is also a joy to watch).
The bleak and eerie atmosphere of the stories is consistently impressive, as is the clear understanding of visual style possessed by the makers: stories are filled with startling images and symbols, occasionally drawn from the visual arts (one adversary is basically a Magritte painting brought to life). Always memorable, and never more so than in its final episodes: the sheer unexpected bizarreness of Sapphire and Steel's fate makes it all the more shocking and downbeat. A unique and very distinctive series.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Martian (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Ridley Scott's best film since Alien
It’s safe to say that Ridley Scott knows his way around a camera. From Alien to Gladiator, the director has brought to the silver screen some of the greatest films of all time, heck even Prometheus wasn’t that bad in a muddled kind of way.
Now, after the underwhelming Exodus: Gods & Kings, Scott returns to the director’s chair doing what he does best, sci-fi. But is The Martian as good as his earlier works?
Thankfully, the answer is yes and The Martian proves how good the director can be when he’s given the right material to work with. Andy Weir’s 2011 novel of the same name lends a good starting point and Scott ends up with his best film since 1979’s masterpiece, Alien – that’s no joke.
Matt Damon stars as Mark Wateny, an astronaut and botanist left stranded on Mars after a mission goes horribly wrong. After being left behind by his colleagues, played by talent including Jessica Chastain (The Hurt Locker) and Kate Mara (Fantastic Four), Mark must find a way to survive on the red planet until a rescue operation can reach him – years later.
Sean Bean, Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover and Jeff Daniels also star as NASA directors, scientists and astrophysicists. Despite their limited screen time, each brings something to the table with a spirited performance.
Scott directs The Martian with a huge amount of confidence, clearly helped by his time on Alien and Prometheus, and his cinematography is absolute perfection. Never has Mars looked this good on film. The desolate, arid landscape is breath-taking and the numerous aerial shots that feature Damon’s character only add to the emptiness.
The special effects too are wonderful. CGI is mixed with amazing practical props that integrate so well together that it’s impossible to tell the difference. The numerous spacecraft, living quarters and vehicles all feel so real and continue to add more credibility to The Martian’s cause.
Damon is also second-to-none and over the course of the film develops new personality traits, all due to the intense stress of being stranded 50 million miles away from Earth. The film lives and dies on his efforts and thankfully, the ever-reliable actor gives one of his best performances in years.
Unfortunately, Jessica Chastain doesn’t have too much to do until the finale and feels a little side-lined – she has won an Oscar after all, though Damon’s magnetic presence is enough to forgive some of the shortcomings in other characters.
The script is, on the whole, very good indeed. Despite only featuring one character for the majority of its 140 minute run-time, The Martian is funny, witty and helped by a fantastic disco soundtrack that has hits from the likes of ABBA dotted about.
Overall, The Martian is sci-fi film-making at its peak. Ridley Scott has crafted a beautiful looking and deeply involving film that features the very best in special effects and scientific accuracy. With Matt Damon’s dry humour and emotional depth, it’s a winner all round.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/04/ridley-scotts-best-film-since-alien-the-martian-review/
Now, after the underwhelming Exodus: Gods & Kings, Scott returns to the director’s chair doing what he does best, sci-fi. But is The Martian as good as his earlier works?
Thankfully, the answer is yes and The Martian proves how good the director can be when he’s given the right material to work with. Andy Weir’s 2011 novel of the same name lends a good starting point and Scott ends up with his best film since 1979’s masterpiece, Alien – that’s no joke.
Matt Damon stars as Mark Wateny, an astronaut and botanist left stranded on Mars after a mission goes horribly wrong. After being left behind by his colleagues, played by talent including Jessica Chastain (The Hurt Locker) and Kate Mara (Fantastic Four), Mark must find a way to survive on the red planet until a rescue operation can reach him – years later.
Sean Bean, Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover and Jeff Daniels also star as NASA directors, scientists and astrophysicists. Despite their limited screen time, each brings something to the table with a spirited performance.
Scott directs The Martian with a huge amount of confidence, clearly helped by his time on Alien and Prometheus, and his cinematography is absolute perfection. Never has Mars looked this good on film. The desolate, arid landscape is breath-taking and the numerous aerial shots that feature Damon’s character only add to the emptiness.
The special effects too are wonderful. CGI is mixed with amazing practical props that integrate so well together that it’s impossible to tell the difference. The numerous spacecraft, living quarters and vehicles all feel so real and continue to add more credibility to The Martian’s cause.
Damon is also second-to-none and over the course of the film develops new personality traits, all due to the intense stress of being stranded 50 million miles away from Earth. The film lives and dies on his efforts and thankfully, the ever-reliable actor gives one of his best performances in years.
Unfortunately, Jessica Chastain doesn’t have too much to do until the finale and feels a little side-lined – she has won an Oscar after all, though Damon’s magnetic presence is enough to forgive some of the shortcomings in other characters.
The script is, on the whole, very good indeed. Despite only featuring one character for the majority of its 140 minute run-time, The Martian is funny, witty and helped by a fantastic disco soundtrack that has hits from the likes of ABBA dotted about.
Overall, The Martian is sci-fi film-making at its peak. Ridley Scott has crafted a beautiful looking and deeply involving film that features the very best in special effects and scientific accuracy. With Matt Damon’s dry humour and emotional depth, it’s a winner all round.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/04/ridley-scotts-best-film-since-alien-the-martian-review/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Duck Soup (1933) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
“You’re a brave man. Go and break through the lines. And remember, while you’re out there risking your life and limb through shot and shell, we’ll be in be in here thinking what a sucker you are” Rufus T. Firefly
And the one liners just keep on coming…
Here we have before you one of the most famous entries form The Marx Brothers as they made their indelible mark on Hollywood(land) and the silver screen back in the 1930’s, moving away from their Vaudeville roots to new level of immortally on celluloid.
The fifth film to credit the “The Marx Brothers”, Duck Soup in on one hand a sharply written satire on the weakness of mob mentality to willingly promote unwelcome change to their society and their willingness to follow just about any lunatic as long as they like what they hear; as well as a straight forward slapstick comedy of the time, in keeping with its music hall roots.
It is the music hall aspect of this classic which can be harder for a modern audience to take to, unless you are already disposed to this sort of rather dated humour. But as a satire, it is brilliant and still very funny over seventy years on.
Groucho Marx steals the show as Rufus T. Firefly as he leads his unwitting and possibly dimwitted fictional country of Fredonia (geddit?) to war and ultimate destruction. He is a character, whilst not in any way taking off Adolf Hitler, who was of course rising to power in Germany at this very moment, was clearly a reflection on this type of reckless and charismatic leader and as the hilarious final act demonstrates, is all too common in history and even in our present.
And the fact that Fredonia is ultimately doomed, was a coincidental foreshadowing of Nazi Germany’s fate a decade later, as well as a clear demonstration of the savvy writing.
Witty, whether it is the physical trademark Marx Brothers comedy or the sharp screenplay by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby, based on the stage version of the same name, this a classic satire; whilst not being as hard hitting a s Chaplin’s works of the period, with The Great Dictator (1940) springing to mind, it still holds up and makes its point without hammering you over the head it.
So, you can just enjoy the show and/or take away the message, it is really up to you.
Here we have before you one of the most famous entries form The Marx Brothers as they made their indelible mark on Hollywood(land) and the silver screen back in the 1930’s, moving away from their Vaudeville roots to new level of immortally on celluloid.
The fifth film to credit the “The Marx Brothers”, Duck Soup in on one hand a sharply written satire on the weakness of mob mentality to willingly promote unwelcome change to their society and their willingness to follow just about any lunatic as long as they like what they hear; as well as a straight forward slapstick comedy of the time, in keeping with its music hall roots.
It is the music hall aspect of this classic which can be harder for a modern audience to take to, unless you are already disposed to this sort of rather dated humour. But as a satire, it is brilliant and still very funny over seventy years on.
Groucho Marx steals the show as Rufus T. Firefly as he leads his unwitting and possibly dimwitted fictional country of Fredonia (geddit?) to war and ultimate destruction. He is a character, whilst not in any way taking off Adolf Hitler, who was of course rising to power in Germany at this very moment, was clearly a reflection on this type of reckless and charismatic leader and as the hilarious final act demonstrates, is all too common in history and even in our present.
And the fact that Fredonia is ultimately doomed, was a coincidental foreshadowing of Nazi Germany’s fate a decade later, as well as a clear demonstration of the savvy writing.
Witty, whether it is the physical trademark Marx Brothers comedy or the sharp screenplay by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby, based on the stage version of the same name, this a classic satire; whilst not being as hard hitting a s Chaplin’s works of the period, with The Great Dictator (1940) springing to mind, it still holds up and makes its point without hammering you over the head it.
So, you can just enjoy the show and/or take away the message, it is really up to you.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Daddy's Home (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Lesson in beige comedy
We did it! After managing to get through the record-breaking year that was 2015, things in the film world shifted down a gear for 2016, well, for a month or so.
As we begin another promising year in the world of the silver screen, one of the first movies to garner the public’s attention is Daddy’s Home, but can this comedy with Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell hold its own with the heavyweights in the genre?
Daddy’s Home has a simple premise, stepfather Brad (Ferrell) who lives and breathes for the adoration of his stepchildren feels threatened when their hunky, off-the-wall dad Dusty (Wahlberg) comes into town. That’s literally the plot, and this becomes the film’s major stumbling block.
Decent comedy films are ten-a-penny these days and over the last few years, director Paul Feig has charmed audiences across the globe with Bridesmaids, The Heat and the rib-achingly funny Spy. He is simply the guy everyone wants for comedy as every script that has his name attached turns to gold.
Daddy’s Home unfortunately lacks a cohesive and witty plot, instead opting for clichéd laughs that work the first few times, but fall flat afterwards. That’s not to say there isn’t anything clever here, in fact there is, but it’s in short supply.
The two lead actors are, as usual, dependable with Wahlberg being particularly memorable, not least because he spends the majority of the 96 minute running time with his shirt off, and Ferrell is a veteran in this genre, but the characters lack any real depth, and the obligatory moments were director Sean Anders wants us to feel something for the pair simply evaporate into thin air.
Elsewhere, Linda Cardellini provides a surprisingly phoned-in performance as Dusty’s ex-wife, Sara, with her two children, Megan and Dylan, played by Scarlett Estevez and Owen Vaccaro faring much better. Estevez in particular is a promising young actress.
Despite these glaring omissions, a brilliant sequence shot in a fertility clinic garners laughs from start to finish and Thomas Haden Church’s turn as Ferrell’s boss is a real joy to watch with some of the film’s best lines.
It just all lacks a little touch of Feig. There’s none of the satirical humour mixed with belly laughs that audiences come to expect in 21st Century comedy and it’s a real shame the two lead stars, heavily marketed as facing off against each other, don’t get to do more and go that bit further.
Overall, Daddy’s Home is a perfectly pleasant start to 2016. It’s no-where near the standards set by Bridesmaids or Spy, but does just about enough to warrant a watch. It’s just not as funny as its credentials would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/10/a-lesson-in-beige-comedy-daddys-home-review/
As we begin another promising year in the world of the silver screen, one of the first movies to garner the public’s attention is Daddy’s Home, but can this comedy with Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell hold its own with the heavyweights in the genre?
Daddy’s Home has a simple premise, stepfather Brad (Ferrell) who lives and breathes for the adoration of his stepchildren feels threatened when their hunky, off-the-wall dad Dusty (Wahlberg) comes into town. That’s literally the plot, and this becomes the film’s major stumbling block.
Decent comedy films are ten-a-penny these days and over the last few years, director Paul Feig has charmed audiences across the globe with Bridesmaids, The Heat and the rib-achingly funny Spy. He is simply the guy everyone wants for comedy as every script that has his name attached turns to gold.
Daddy’s Home unfortunately lacks a cohesive and witty plot, instead opting for clichéd laughs that work the first few times, but fall flat afterwards. That’s not to say there isn’t anything clever here, in fact there is, but it’s in short supply.
The two lead actors are, as usual, dependable with Wahlberg being particularly memorable, not least because he spends the majority of the 96 minute running time with his shirt off, and Ferrell is a veteran in this genre, but the characters lack any real depth, and the obligatory moments were director Sean Anders wants us to feel something for the pair simply evaporate into thin air.
Elsewhere, Linda Cardellini provides a surprisingly phoned-in performance as Dusty’s ex-wife, Sara, with her two children, Megan and Dylan, played by Scarlett Estevez and Owen Vaccaro faring much better. Estevez in particular is a promising young actress.
Despite these glaring omissions, a brilliant sequence shot in a fertility clinic garners laughs from start to finish and Thomas Haden Church’s turn as Ferrell’s boss is a real joy to watch with some of the film’s best lines.
It just all lacks a little touch of Feig. There’s none of the satirical humour mixed with belly laughs that audiences come to expect in 21st Century comedy and it’s a real shame the two lead stars, heavily marketed as facing off against each other, don’t get to do more and go that bit further.
Overall, Daddy’s Home is a perfectly pleasant start to 2016. It’s no-where near the standards set by Bridesmaids or Spy, but does just about enough to warrant a watch. It’s just not as funny as its credentials would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/10/a-lesson-in-beige-comedy-daddys-home-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Focus (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Reasonably Accomplished
Will Smith desperately needed a film to catapult him back onto the silver screen A-list after M. Night Shyamalan’s critical and commercial disaster After Earth.
The Hollywood favourite recently spoke about how the movie bruised his ego and made him reassess his position as a serious actor. His latest film Focus, is the first after a brief hiatus, but does it mark a return to form?
Focus follows the story of Nicky Spurgeon (Smith), a seasoned con-man who becomes romantically involved with a young woman, played by Margot Robbie. Naturally, life manages to get in the way and years later Nicky is in Buenos Aires trying to carry out his biggest scam yet – but it doesn’t all run smoothly.
The story is reasonably accomplished but struggles to discern just what genre it is trying to be. There’s a tinge of romantic comedy, a drop of
hard-hitting drama and the occasional slice of Taken-esque thrills which all mix together and leave a rather sour taste in the mouth.
Focusing on one particular theme would have been a better prospect for directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, but it wasn’t meant to be and what the audience is left with is a mish-mash of genres which doesn’t quite gel like it was clearly intended.
The film relies heavily on the stunning locations of Buenos Aires and New Orleans, as well as the charisma and chemistry from its two leads rather than delving into character developments and this works well. Smith is a commanding presence and dominates every scene demonstrating just why we fell in love with him all those years ago.
Moreover, Robbie is a force to be reckoned with and comes up against the attitude of Smith’s character very well. Her steely, yet vulnerable persona is one of the main highlights in the film.
Focus starts off slowly with nothing of any real significance happening in the opening hour and this is disappointing given the film’s well-worn genre. Many similar films, Oceans Eleven as a prime example, wear their themes with much more confidence.
Apart from a few cleverly choreographed shots showing the con-artists in action during the first 20 minutes, Focus comes across as rather half-baked, almost dull.
However, fast-forward to the final third and it finally kicks into gear. As we follow Smith try and pull off a hugely risky scam, the audience is thrown numerous red herrings with the story never settling until the end credits roll.
Overall, Focus was a test of Will Smith’s prowess as an actor following on from After Earth’s failings and thankfully he shows how versatile he is. Margot Robbie is also engaging to watch and their on-screen chemistry is positively sizzling, but when a film has such an identity crisis, it’s hard to focus on anything else.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/01/reasonably-accomplished-focus-review/
The Hollywood favourite recently spoke about how the movie bruised his ego and made him reassess his position as a serious actor. His latest film Focus, is the first after a brief hiatus, but does it mark a return to form?
Focus follows the story of Nicky Spurgeon (Smith), a seasoned con-man who becomes romantically involved with a young woman, played by Margot Robbie. Naturally, life manages to get in the way and years later Nicky is in Buenos Aires trying to carry out his biggest scam yet – but it doesn’t all run smoothly.
The story is reasonably accomplished but struggles to discern just what genre it is trying to be. There’s a tinge of romantic comedy, a drop of
hard-hitting drama and the occasional slice of Taken-esque thrills which all mix together and leave a rather sour taste in the mouth.
Focusing on one particular theme would have been a better prospect for directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, but it wasn’t meant to be and what the audience is left with is a mish-mash of genres which doesn’t quite gel like it was clearly intended.
The film relies heavily on the stunning locations of Buenos Aires and New Orleans, as well as the charisma and chemistry from its two leads rather than delving into character developments and this works well. Smith is a commanding presence and dominates every scene demonstrating just why we fell in love with him all those years ago.
Moreover, Robbie is a force to be reckoned with and comes up against the attitude of Smith’s character very well. Her steely, yet vulnerable persona is one of the main highlights in the film.
Focus starts off slowly with nothing of any real significance happening in the opening hour and this is disappointing given the film’s well-worn genre. Many similar films, Oceans Eleven as a prime example, wear their themes with much more confidence.
Apart from a few cleverly choreographed shots showing the con-artists in action during the first 20 minutes, Focus comes across as rather half-baked, almost dull.
However, fast-forward to the final third and it finally kicks into gear. As we follow Smith try and pull off a hugely risky scam, the audience is thrown numerous red herrings with the story never settling until the end credits roll.
Overall, Focus was a test of Will Smith’s prowess as an actor following on from After Earth’s failings and thankfully he shows how versatile he is. Margot Robbie is also engaging to watch and their on-screen chemistry is positively sizzling, but when a film has such an identity crisis, it’s hard to focus on anything else.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/01/reasonably-accomplished-focus-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Proving Grounds in Tabletop Games
Aug 23, 2021
Maia Strongheart sees the eight opponents surrounding her and knows exactly how to handle each one. She makes a dash for #4, a simpleton Warrior in Training, and whoosh – misses. “Huh, that’s never happened to me before,” she thinks. Performing a daring backflip whilst targeting the Clan Elder in the #6 position with a well-placed finishing blow and whoosh – her armor seems to part like the Red Sea as the Clan Elder finds its weakness and delivers a wound to our heroine. “WHO IS PLAYING ME?” Maia wonders. It’s me. Travis. The worst player of Proving Grounds. Poor Maia.
Proving Grounds is a solo fighting dice game with real-time phases. Players will win by defeating eight opponents in battle and will lose (often, in my case) if the heroine suffers too many wounds. The game is played over several rounds, and Renegade has provided an app to act as a timer during the rolling dice phase. Obviously I am terrible at the game, but how does it play and do I feel like continuing to suffer subsequent losses?
To setup a basic game, place the Encounter Board in the middle of the table. Shuffle the enemy cards (with swords & board backs) and deal one per slot around the Encounter Board. These are the first set of enemies Maia will be fighting. Place Battle Markers (silver ninja stars that track wounds inflicted to enemies) in the outlined spaces of the enemy cards. Place Maia’s health token (a heart) on the tracker and one each of the green, yellow, and blue dice on the health area in the space with a rainbow surround. Fill the exhaustion track with one white die per space (on the right side of the Encounter Board), and take the rest of the dice into hand to use as the dice pool. For this review I also used the Dragonling Die module.
As mentioned, Proving Grounds is played solo over a series of rounds. Each round consists of three phases: Roll Dice, Resolve Attacks, and Recover. The first phase of the game, Roll Dice, is also the most chaotic. During this phase the app timer (or your phone or sand timer or sun dial) will allow 60 seconds to roll the dice and arrive at a final result. The interesting aspect of this mechanic at play here is that only sets of dice may be rerolled, not singles. So players may only roll that set of four 3s and not the solitary 1 sitting there all alone. This causes some brain freeze because many games utilize this in reverse, where only singles may be rerolled. Factor that into a 60 second frenzy to get the greatest results and brains will smoke.
Once the timer is up or players are satisfied with the rolled results, they move to the next phase: Resolve Attacks. Each number rolled on the dice correspond to the enemy’s position around the Encounter Board. So that solitary 1 that was rolled earlier is assigned to the enemy in position #1. Here’s the kick in the rear though: any single dice assigned to an enemy will result in a wound dealt to Maia, and would require the player to sacrifice one of the dice to the exhaustion track! Should an enemy require three or more dice but only two are assigned, or if zero dice are assigned, nothing happens to Maia nor the enemy. But those dang single dice will come back to haunt the player. A lot, if they play like I do. Some enemies will require at least one of the dice to be the blue/green/yellow die in order to be successful while others are just straight number of dice. Calculating everything that is needed during the Roll Dice phase is something that I have yet to master.
After attacks are resolved, players enter the Recover phase. During this phase players will gather all assigned dice from the round as well as any dice on the lowest spot of the exhaustion track to be used for the next round. Any enemies that were defeated have left an empty slot on the Encounter Board, so a new enemy will now fill that void. Play continues in this fashion of three phases per round until either eight enemies have been defeated or Maia suffers too many wounds to continue.
Components. I am fascinated by how few components are needed to put a game like this together. Yes, the Encounter Board is mostly unnecessary, but a great way to organize the game and keep everything spacially relevant for those of us that need that. The cards are fine quality and the game has great art. The dice are very cool, but I am unsure how the colors pop for our colorblind gamer friends. While the game doesn’t necessarily refer to the damage markers as “ninja stars” I cannot get over the fact that they are ninja stars. They are certainly out of place in a game like this where I encountered zero ninjas in my plays. Everything else, though, is great and it comes in a nice-sized box: a little smaller than my Century: Golem Edition box.
It was Kane Klenko’s birthday recently, so I wished him a happy birthday on social media and informed him that I was celebrating by playing Proving Grounds. His response was absolutely perfect: “Good luck!” Well, Kane, I never have good luck with this one! It is certainly a combination of poor dice rolling, poor decision making whilst rolling dice, and just dumb luck (emphasis on dumb). I love playing this game but it is infuriating that I have yet to beat it! Even with just the first Dragonling Die module! Gahhhhhh!!!
However, Proving Grounds is an excellent dice game that breaks out of the Yahtzee clone mold and into something fresh and exciting. The twist of only being able to reroll sets instead of singles makes for interesting decisions when you really need to defeat enemy #5 but just cannot roll ANY 5s to save your life (in the game). I just want to beat it once with the Dragonling Die so I can start adding in other modules (oh yes, there are several other modules to add). When games force me to WANT to play them more and more, even for the sheer hope of victory, I consider that a mark of distinction and a sign of a great game.
So if you are like me and enjoy the pain of defeat over and over again then I invite you to try Proving Grounds. It will not be easy. But if you happen to beat it, especially on your first try, please let me know. I need all the cheat codes I can get here. It will stay in my collection probably forever because I just need to overcome it, and then once I figure it out completely, I will just need to wallop it over and over to teach it a lesson. Enjoy Proving Grounds everyone!
Proving Grounds is a solo fighting dice game with real-time phases. Players will win by defeating eight opponents in battle and will lose (often, in my case) if the heroine suffers too many wounds. The game is played over several rounds, and Renegade has provided an app to act as a timer during the rolling dice phase. Obviously I am terrible at the game, but how does it play and do I feel like continuing to suffer subsequent losses?
To setup a basic game, place the Encounter Board in the middle of the table. Shuffle the enemy cards (with swords & board backs) and deal one per slot around the Encounter Board. These are the first set of enemies Maia will be fighting. Place Battle Markers (silver ninja stars that track wounds inflicted to enemies) in the outlined spaces of the enemy cards. Place Maia’s health token (a heart) on the tracker and one each of the green, yellow, and blue dice on the health area in the space with a rainbow surround. Fill the exhaustion track with one white die per space (on the right side of the Encounter Board), and take the rest of the dice into hand to use as the dice pool. For this review I also used the Dragonling Die module.
As mentioned, Proving Grounds is played solo over a series of rounds. Each round consists of three phases: Roll Dice, Resolve Attacks, and Recover. The first phase of the game, Roll Dice, is also the most chaotic. During this phase the app timer (or your phone or sand timer or sun dial) will allow 60 seconds to roll the dice and arrive at a final result. The interesting aspect of this mechanic at play here is that only sets of dice may be rerolled, not singles. So players may only roll that set of four 3s and not the solitary 1 sitting there all alone. This causes some brain freeze because many games utilize this in reverse, where only singles may be rerolled. Factor that into a 60 second frenzy to get the greatest results and brains will smoke.
Once the timer is up or players are satisfied with the rolled results, they move to the next phase: Resolve Attacks. Each number rolled on the dice correspond to the enemy’s position around the Encounter Board. So that solitary 1 that was rolled earlier is assigned to the enemy in position #1. Here’s the kick in the rear though: any single dice assigned to an enemy will result in a wound dealt to Maia, and would require the player to sacrifice one of the dice to the exhaustion track! Should an enemy require three or more dice but only two are assigned, or if zero dice are assigned, nothing happens to Maia nor the enemy. But those dang single dice will come back to haunt the player. A lot, if they play like I do. Some enemies will require at least one of the dice to be the blue/green/yellow die in order to be successful while others are just straight number of dice. Calculating everything that is needed during the Roll Dice phase is something that I have yet to master.
After attacks are resolved, players enter the Recover phase. During this phase players will gather all assigned dice from the round as well as any dice on the lowest spot of the exhaustion track to be used for the next round. Any enemies that were defeated have left an empty slot on the Encounter Board, so a new enemy will now fill that void. Play continues in this fashion of three phases per round until either eight enemies have been defeated or Maia suffers too many wounds to continue.
Components. I am fascinated by how few components are needed to put a game like this together. Yes, the Encounter Board is mostly unnecessary, but a great way to organize the game and keep everything spacially relevant for those of us that need that. The cards are fine quality and the game has great art. The dice are very cool, but I am unsure how the colors pop for our colorblind gamer friends. While the game doesn’t necessarily refer to the damage markers as “ninja stars” I cannot get over the fact that they are ninja stars. They are certainly out of place in a game like this where I encountered zero ninjas in my plays. Everything else, though, is great and it comes in a nice-sized box: a little smaller than my Century: Golem Edition box.
It was Kane Klenko’s birthday recently, so I wished him a happy birthday on social media and informed him that I was celebrating by playing Proving Grounds. His response was absolutely perfect: “Good luck!” Well, Kane, I never have good luck with this one! It is certainly a combination of poor dice rolling, poor decision making whilst rolling dice, and just dumb luck (emphasis on dumb). I love playing this game but it is infuriating that I have yet to beat it! Even with just the first Dragonling Die module! Gahhhhhh!!!
However, Proving Grounds is an excellent dice game that breaks out of the Yahtzee clone mold and into something fresh and exciting. The twist of only being able to reroll sets instead of singles makes for interesting decisions when you really need to defeat enemy #5 but just cannot roll ANY 5s to save your life (in the game). I just want to beat it once with the Dragonling Die so I can start adding in other modules (oh yes, there are several other modules to add). When games force me to WANT to play them more and more, even for the sheer hope of victory, I consider that a mark of distinction and a sign of a great game.
So if you are like me and enjoy the pain of defeat over and over again then I invite you to try Proving Grounds. It will not be easy. But if you happen to beat it, especially on your first try, please let me know. I need all the cheat codes I can get here. It will stay in my collection probably forever because I just need to overcome it, and then once I figure it out completely, I will just need to wallop it over and over to teach it a lesson. Enjoy Proving Grounds everyone!
